Iran continues to defy the world in its pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability. Its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, openly boasts that Iran already has passed the point of no return and that nothing will prevent his country from continuing on its current course. As most analysts expected, sanctions have done nothing to stop the Iranian program to enrich uranium. Unless more draconian measures are taken, which are opposed by many nations, and the Bush Administration, it is unlikely anything short of a military strike by either the United States or Israel – the principal target of Iranian threats – can stop Iran from building bombs.

The debate is widespread, as we see by this forum, whether a successful military option truly exists, and whether it is feasible to destroy Iran’s nuclear program or merely slow it down. Americans are not averse to using force against Iran. Though nonmilitary options are preferred by most, majorities are also starting to favor targeted strikes according to a survey by The Israel Project in September 2006, especially if carried out by NATO or the U.S. and its allies rather than going it alone or Israel doing it.

The United States, in particular, faces a serious problem in mobilizing support for a strike against Iran because of its experience in Iraq. Because many Americans (and even higher percentages in other countries) believe the Bush Administration was wrong about Iraq’s nuclear capability and manipulated the intelligence for political purposes, it will be more difficult to convince the public that Iran is really a threat to U.S. security. Some see threats against Iran as just a continuing desire of the neoconservatives to push America into war for the purpose of securing oil. The appeasement lobby that always opposes military force will insist on pursuing diplomacy even as the Iranians continue their program. A broader fear also exists that once the U.S. got into a war with Iran, we would face similar problems as we now have in Iraq.

Unlike policy toward Iraq, however, it appears that a much broader consensus exists both inside and outside the United States that Iran has a dangerous nuclear weapons program that must be stopped. That is why the Europeans have been at the forefront of the diplomatic efforts. In the past the Europeans have shown little backbone, and even less willingness to contemplate the use of military force, however, the new regime in France (France!) has openly said it cannot accept a nuclear Iran. Still, it is likely the United States would have to go it alone. We may not even be able to count on staunch allies in Britain because of the public outcry there against the war in Iraq.

A war against Iran would also be a far more difficult undertaking than the one in Iraq. The terrain is different, more mountainous in places, for example, rather than expanses of open desert. The Iranians have a large well-trained army that is likely to fight with more dedication to defending the homeland than Iraqi soldiers who knew they were primarily defending Saddam Hussein. While U.S. forces and equipment are superior to that of Iran, it would undoubtedly be a costly war in terms of both the economy and human lives.

Most analysts do not believe, however, it is necessary to invade Iran to slow down their nuclear program. The more likely scenario calls for air strikes on key facilities. This will not be easy either. Unlike Israel’s attack on Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981, the United States would not have the element of surprise. The Iranians expect to be hit and have spread their facilities around the country, hidden them deep below the ground, sometimes under civilian structures, and strengthened their air defenses around the country. War planners may indeed know where the most important facilities are and may have “bunker buster” bombs and other munitions that can destroy labs built deep underground. The use of cruise missiles and stealth bombers may allow U.S. forces to penetrate Iran’s air defenses, but it may still be difficult to do enough damage to stop Iran from completing a bomb. Though public attention has focused on the possibility of a direct attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, other military options may exist, including targeting the country’s leadership.

Israelis would prefer that the U.S. carry out any military attack. The U.S. has a greater capability for such a mission and it would reduce the risk of Israel being drawn into a wider war. Israelis are confident they can carry out the mission if necessary, but recognize it will be far more difficult than the surprise attack on Osirak. Their recent raid on what is believed to be a Syrian nuclear facility, however, demonstrated the Israeli Air Force still has the capability to carry out surprise attacks deep in enemy territory.

Before undertaking any military action, the United States and Israel will also have to take into account the possible Iranian reaction. Masud Yazaiari, spokesperson of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, warned against any Israeli efforts to stop their nuclear program. “Their threats to attack our nuclear facilities will not succeed,” Yazaiari said. “They are aware that Tehran’s response would be overwhelming and would wipe Israel off the face of the earth.”

An attack on Iran would undoubtedly unleash a wave of terrorism against the United States and/or Israel by Islamic radicals. It would also likely unite the Iranian people and reduce the chance of any internal revolution as reformers and theocrats would be driven together by patriotic defense of the nation.

The decision about what to do about Iran may be the most difficult decision President Bush and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert will face during the remainder of their terms. Can they afford to allow Iran to build a bomb? Can they trust their successors to do what is necessary to prevent it? Can Olmert, after learning the lessons of the Holocaust, take the risk of allowing a man who says he wants to destroy the Jewish state the means to carry out his threat?